Publication Order. On Tuesday, the California Supreme Court ordered publication of the Court of Appeal opinion in Moore v. Superior Court, S122846 (Ct.App. no. C044242) which involved the question of whether the Proposition 36 prior-conviction-washout-period runs from the commission of the prior offense, rather than from the conviction of that prior offense.

Here's some analysis from the Court of Appeal (3d Dist.) opinion:

However, as relevant here, Proposition 36 shall not apply to a defendant previously convicted of a serious or violent felony unless he or she has satisfied a so-called five-year "washout" period, that is, "unless the nonviolent drug possession offense occurred after a period of five years in which the defendant remained free of both prison custody and the commission of an offense that results in (A) a felony conviction other than a nonviolent drug possession offense . . . ." ( § 1210.1, subd. (b)(1), italics added.)

The sole issue is whether it is the commission or the conviction of the prior disqualifying felony that begins the washout period. We hold that the washout period commenced when petitioner committed the disqualifying prior felony, as opposed to when he was convicted of that felony. We shall therefore direct the issuance of the writ of mandate sought by petitioner.

(Emphasis added.)

Because 60 days have passed since it was filed, the unpublished opinion is no longer on the California Court's web site. I did find it here on Lexisone.com (free registration required).